Shiloh Christian Library

Author And Title

STRAIGHT PATHS
For
THE CHILDREN OF GOD.
by
A.M.
Plain words concerning:
THE NEW BIRTH, ASSURANCE, TWO NATURES, THE HOLY SPIRIT,
INSPIRATION, SEPARATION, THE CHURCH, FELLOWSHIP,
BAPTISM, LORDS SUPPER, CLERISY, ORDINATION, MINISTERS,
SECTARIANISM

STRAIGHT PATHS
For The
CHILDREN OF GOD.
by
A.M.

Plain words concerning

THE NEW BIRTH,
ASSURANCE,
TWO NATURES,
THE HOLY SPIRIT,
INSPIRATION,
SEPARATION,
THE CHURCH,
FELLOWSHIP,
BAPTISM,
LORDS SUPPER,
CLERISY,
ORDINATION,
MINISTERS,
SECTARIANISM
The Word of God teaches:-The Church of God is one body {Eph. 4:4}; all Christians are
members of it {I Cor. 12:13}; Sectarianism, which is schism in the body of Christ, is sin {Cor. I Cor.
1:10}; Christ is the center of gathering; believers ought not to meet on the ground of any doctrine or
truth, however precious, nor should they assemble in the name of any man, sect or party {Matt. 18:19,
20}; liberty should be afforded for the exercise of the gifts bestowed by the risen and ascended Head
of the Church {Cor. 14:31}; the hope of the Christian is the return of the Lord Jesus to take His people
to be with Himself {Titus 2:13}.
THE NEW BIRTH
Nicodemus, the learned Jewish rabbi, was startled by Christs declaration-Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot se the Kingdom of God {John 3.3}. Though
educated, moral, and religious, the Lord Jesus, in answer to his enquiry, emphasized His statement in
the words- Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye MUST be born again {v.7}. What is the reason of this
necessity? Some look upon it as an arbitrary decree on the part of God to hinder earnest, seeking souls
from obtaining salvation. This is a great mistake. There is a moral necessity for regeneration. That
which is born of the flesh is flesh {v.6}, and can never be anything else. Cultivate it, improve it,
religionize it, it is still flesh. If one were taken to Heaven without being born of God {1 John 5.1},
he would be wretched and miserable. The carnal mind-or the mind of the flesh- is enmity against
God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so them they that are in the flesh
cannot please God {Romans 8.7,8}.
All of us by nature are children of wrath {Eph. 2. 3}. Some imagine that they were born into
the world Christians, but they are mistaken. We were all born sinners to start with. Through the
one mans disobedience, the many were made sinners {Romans 5. 19. R. V.} By the fall of Adam the
many-that is all of us-were made, or constituted sinners.

If we were to ask a Sunday School class What is a sinner? most likely the reply given would be one
who sins. But the answer does not go deep enough. Men are constituted sinners by virtue of what they
are, not on account of what they do. Men sin because they are sinners. No one is guilty of Adams
transgression, though all suffer on account of it. An apple tree is an apple tree in January as much as it
is in September when it is laden with golden fruit. Because it is an apple tree it bears apples. The new
birth is an absolute necessity in order to be a child of God.
Let us see what the Scriptures say about it. Being born again not of corruptible seed but of
incorruptible by the Word of God {1 Peter 1.23}. The Holy Spirit is the author of the new birth, but it
is through the word of the truth of the Gospel that sinners are born anew. As many as received Him,
to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name: which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God{John 1. 12-13,
R. V.} It is by receiving Christ that one is born of God, and to receive Him is to believe on Him.
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God {1 John 5.1}. By believing on the Son of
God Who loved him and gave Himself for him, the unconverted reader will be born again {John 3.3},
saved {Romans 10.9}, forgiven {Acts 10.43}, obtain eternal life {John 6.47}, peace with God {Romans
5.1}, and be justified from all things {Acts 13.38,39}.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life {John 3.16}.
ASSURANCE OF SALVATION.
Some declare that it is presumption for any one to say that he knows he is saved. All we can
do, it is confidently affirmed, is to hope for the best and wait until the great day to see where we
are to spend eternity. But such teaching is not according to Gods Word. Christians, in apostolic days,
had no doubts about their salvation from sins penalty. For proof of this let us appeal to Scripture.
We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens {2 Cor. V. 1}. We are confident, we are always
confident {v. 6-8}. In Whom we have redemption through His Blood even the forgiveness of sins
{Eph. 1. 7}. Being justified by faith we have peace with God {Romans 5. 1}. We know that we have
passed from death unto life {1John 3. 14}. I write unto you little children because your sins are
forgiven you, for His Names sake {1John 2. 12}. If God tells me that by believing on Christ I am
forgiven, which is the greater presumption, to believe or doubt His testimony? Scripture declares
that those who believe on Christ are forgiven. Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of
sins {Acts 10. 43}. I and according to Gods Word, my sins are remitted or pardoned. Am I
presumptuous in taking Him at His Word and believing that I am forgiven? In Acts 13. 38, 39, it is
distinctly stated that All that believe are justified from all things. I do believe on Christ, and Gods
Word says I am justified from all things. Ought I to doubt my justification, or believe that I am
justified because God says so? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved {Acts 16.
31}. I do believe on Him Who died on Calvary for all my sins, and according to Gods Word, I am
saved. Shall I set to my seal that God is true and thank Him for salvation, or shall I disbelieve Him
and assert that no one can know that he is saved until the great day? He that believeth on the Son of
God hath the witness {or testimony} in himself; he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar,
because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son; and this is the record that GOD HATH
GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life {1 John 5. 10, 11}.

Scripture says that those who believe on Christ have everlasting life {John 3. 16; 6. 47}. I do believe on
Him, and therefore I have everlasting life. If I did not believe that I was the possessor of everlasting
life, I would be guilty of the horrid sin of making God a liar, and I dare not commit such a heinous
offence.
Verily, verily I say unto you, says the Lord Jesus, he that heareth My Word and believeth
on Him that sent Me HATH everlasting life and SHALL NOT come into condemnation {judgment, R.
V.}, but is PASSED from death unto life {John 5. 24}. All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are
privileged to say GOD LOVED, GOD GAVE. I BELIEVE, AND I HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.
LAW AND GRACE.
All who are under the law break it, and if obedience to it is necessary to eternal life, who can be
saved? Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight{Romans 3. 20}.
Gods Word assures us that He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life {John 3. 36; 5. 24}.
Scripture nowhere says that He that keepeth the moral law shall inherit eternal. Eternal life is a
gift, and cannot be earned by law-keeping {Rom. 6. 23}. If righteousness comes by the law. Christ is
dead in vain {Gal. 2. 21}. The law never called on anyone to give all his goods to the poor. That would
be loving his neighbor better than himself. If by the law is meant the expression or communication
of the will of the Creator, all beings are responsible to obey Him. That will, however, may be expressed
at various times and in different ways. The expression of Gods will to Adam was different from that
given to Noah; and the expression of His will to Abraham was different from that given to Israel. In
the case of Adam a single prohibition was sufficient. Thou shalt not eat {Gen. 2. 17} was his rule of
life. This was law to him. He transgressed the command, and by it fell. The Christian, in Gods
reckoning, is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit {Roman 8. 9}, and as a risen man in Christ is
exhorted to walk worthy of His calling. For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also
suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow His steps {1 Peter 2. 21}. None of the
moral principles inculcated by the law will be ignored by the believer. Knowing that he is under law
to Christ, he desires to walk even as He walked {1 John 2. 6}. The righteousness of the law will
be fulfilled in him {Roman 8. 4}, not because the law says, Thou shalt not, but on a much higher
footing.
THE TWO NATURES
That such expressions as the old nature and new nature do not occur in Scripture any
more than the words substitution or trinity, we frankly admit. The doctrine, however, is clearly
and fully unfolded. The believer is viewed in Scripture in two aspects-as a child of Adam and as a child
of God. The nature he inherits from Adam is incurably bad. That which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the spirit is spirit {John 3. 6}. The two are not merged in one. They are
essentially different, and are opposed to each other. The mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for
it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be {Romans 8.7 Margin}. For the flesh lusteth
against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other {Gal. 5.
16}. Sometimes it is asked, What is saved and sanctified? Not the old nature; it cannot be remedied,
they say. Not sinless. In reply we would remark that it is not the nature that is saved or sanctified.
It is the man himself We do not regard either the old nature or the new nature as the man.
Nature and person are widely different terms.

A man who was dead in trespasses and sins is the same person now that he is a Christian .It is the man
who acts, not his nature; it is the man who is accountable for his acts, not his nature; it is the man
who sins and is the sinner; it is the man who is pardoned and sanctified.
Speaking on the subject of regeneration, Dr. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, the well-known tract
writer, says: It is a new creation. It is the calling into existence of a new creature with a new nature,
new habits of life, new tastes, new desires, new appetites, new judgments, new opinions, new hopes,
and new fears. All this, and nothing less than this, is implied when He declares that we need a new
birth. Dr. Baldwin, Bishop of Huron, remarks that The old heart will not therefore be re-made or
changed. It will continue to the end, the same utterly hostile, corrupt nature that was at the first
{Life in a Look, p. 39}. Dr. James J. Brooks, of St. Louis, writes thus: Do what we will with the
nature we receive by birth from the first Adam; improve it, reform it, cultivate it, refine it, baptize it,
confirm it, make it join the church, it is still the flesh and it is still enmity against God: {The Truth,
vol. 5,p. 500}.
JUDGMENT OF BELIEVERS
The popular idea is, that at the last day there will be a general resurrection of the just and
the unjust; that then it will be settled what men were, not merely what they did, whether they were
children of God or children of wrath. Scripture does not countenance such a doctrine. The Lord has
said, He that heareth my Word and believeth Him that sent Me hath eternal life, and cometh not into
judgment, but hath passed out of death into life {John 5. 24, R.V.}. Though the believers sins will not
be brought up to condemn him {see Isa. 44. 22; Micah 7. 19; Isaiaih 43. 25; Heb. 10. 17}, he will be
manifested at the judgment seat of Christ, and will either suffer loss or be rewarded. When the
Lord Jesus comes to the air for His Saints, those who have fallen asleep and those who are alive on the
earth will be caught up together to meet Him {wee 1 Thess. 4. 14-18}. This is the resurrection of the
just, the first resurrection {Luke 14. 14;Rev. 20. 5}. At this resurrection none of the wicked dead
shall be raised. After believers are glorified there will be a special judgment of believers before a
special tribunal. This is not a judgment of their state, but of their works. For we {believers} must all
be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the
body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad{2 Cor. 5. 10. R. V.; see also Romans 14.
10-12}. Faithfulness to Christ will then be rewarded.
Each mans work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in
fire, and the fire itself shall prove each mans work of what sort it is. If any mans work shall abide
which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward; if any mans work shall be burned he shall suffer
loss, but he himself shall be saved yet as through fire{1Cor. 3. 13-16, R. V.} Those believers who have
built upon the foundation {Christ Jesus}, that which is represented by wood, hay, and stubble, shall
suffer loss, but they themselves shall be saved so as through fire. Their service does not stand the
test, and they are eternal losers thereby, though their souls are saved. Those who have been making it
their daily business to please God irrespective of consequences, will receive a reward. Their service,
represented by the gold, silver and precious stones, stands the action of the fire. The testing refers to
the quality and not the quantity of the service.

THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER.

Some Christians maintain that true believers may fall away and be eternally lost. Scripture
does not say so.
If a boy disobeys his parents does he cease to be their child? Assuredly not. Neither does a
Christian cease to be a child of God through failure. Though disobedient he is still a son of God,
having been born into the family {John 1. 12, 13; Gal. 3. 26}, and that relationship can never be
destroyed. The words of the Lord are simple and explicit: I give unto My sheep eternal life, and they
shall never perish {John 10. 28}. When a believer sins he does not require to be regenerated a second
time. His duty is to confess his sins to his Father, and He has promised to forgive him {1 John 1. 9}.
Eternal life is not bestowed at the end of lifes journey, or at the resurrection; it is given the moment a
sinner accepts of Christ {John 3. 16-36; 6. 47}. Eternal life is a gift {Romans 6. 23}, but the
crown of life {James 1. 12} is a prize, or a reward for faithfulness. Though every child of God has
eternal life, all will not have the crown of life. The saints at Smyrna were exhorted to be faithful
unto death {even though death sealed their testimony}, and they would receive a crown of life {Rev.
2. 10}. There are at least four distinct crowns spoken of in Scripture which will be awarded by the
Lord Jesus to believers, viz. the incorruptible crown {1 Cor. 9. 25}, the crown of righteousness {2
Timothy 4. 8}, the crown of life {James 1. 12; Rev. 2. 10}, and the crown of glory {1 Peter 5. 4}. The
Lords words to the Christians at Philadelphia are equally applicable and needful for believers now:
Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown {Rev. 3. 11}.
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Whilst owning that man in his natural state is utterly depraved and unable to do anything to
save himself, and that it is the Spirits work to convict of sin and lead to Christ, we ought to remember
that souls are saved, not on account of a work done in them by the Holy Ghost, but on account of a
work done for them by the Lord Jesus eighteen hundred years ago. In all ages the saints of God have
had the Spirit, but a Pentecost He was given in a special manner. The characteristic of the
dispensation of grace is that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers. In past dispensations Old Testament
saints could pray, Take not thy Holy Spirit from me {{psalms 51. 11}. Since Pentecost, believers are
indwelt by Him; otherwise how can we explain such Scriptures as the following: The Holy Ghost was
not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified? {John 7. 39}. When the Comforter is come
whom I will send unto you from My Father {John 15. 26}; If I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you {John 16.7}. No unsaved person has the Holy Spirit. The passage in Luke 11. 13, has
perplexed some. If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much
more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him? The Comforter had
not then been given; the Lord Jesus had not then been glorified {John 7. 39}. Christ has been
glorified. The Holy Spirit has been given; and the Christian does not need to pray that he may
receive the Holy Spirit, being already indwelt by Him and sealed until the day of redemption {Eph.
4. 30}; He is the earnest of his inheritance {Eph.1, 14}; his comforter, teacher {John 14. 26}; helper
and guide {Gal. 5. 17, 18}.

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

There are three great forces at work today in Christendom, viz., Romanism, Ritualism, and
rationalism Man who admit that the Bible is a good book deny that it is the Word of God. Some say
that it is inspired but claim the same kind of inspiration for the writings of Shakespeare, Milton,
Plato and others. In Peters second Epistle, chapter 1 and 20 we read that no Prophecy of the
Scripture is of any private interpretation. That is to say that it did not arise or originate out of the
writers own interpretation or imagination. The next verse explains the reason: -For the prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man, but Holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost. Paul writing to Timothy declares that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of
God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works{2 Timothy 3. 16}. The inspired
writers do not use the word Scripture of any writings but the Sacred Scriptures. Inspiration is
spoken of the writings_ All Scripture. A Scripture or writing is made up of letters and words and
not of invisible thoughts only; but we are told all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; what is
written is therefore inspired of God; and that which is inspired of God is all Scripture; it is all that is
written {Dr. Gaussen}.
In former days, those who attacked the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures were
from without the professing Christian Church; now they are from the pulpit and theological chair. It
is related of Thomas Carlyle, the Chelsea Sage, that on a certain occasion noticing Dr. Stanley, Dean of
Westminster, walking in front of him he remarked There goes Dean Stanley boring holes in the
Church of England. To-day clergymen and theological professors are doing the very same thing in
the various denominations with which they are connected.
Dr. James Kerr, Glasgow, in his timely book entitled The Higher Criticism: Disastrous
Results proves conclusively by copious quotations from the addresses, speeches and writings of
Professors George Adam Smith, Dr. Denney, and Dr. Marcus Dods, of the Glasgow United Free
Church College, that they are unsound on the subject of inspiration. Dr. Kerr shows that They hold
that the Word of God is not inspired; it contains errors, legends, and myths; that it represents fictions
as facts; that it has errors in its original documents, that it has many contradictions, contains
contradictory teachings, had irreconcilable discrepancies, sanctions atrocities, contains forged books.
They also teach that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are full of legends, that the Bible account of
creation is a myth, that the Bible story of the Fall of Man is a fiction, that the Bible story of the Flood
is an invention, that the Bible stories of the Patriarchs are fancies, the Bible stories of Moses are a
fraud, the Bible stories of Elijah and Elisha are superstitions, that the Bible story of Jonah is a nursery
rhyme, the books of Chronicles are very precarious, the Prophetical books have alterations to suit
the times, that the God of the Bible was originally a tribal God, etc., etc.
If the teaching of these theological professors is true, that the Bible is unreliable and
uninspired, why believe it to be the Word of God?
The Lord Jesus said to the Jews; If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed Me: for he
wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe My Words? {John 5. 46. 47}. Was
Christ mistaken? Again and again He quotes from the old Testament showing that He believed in its
inspiration and inerrancy.

1. He refers to the creation of our first parents {Mark 10.6}.

2. He speaks of the deluge {Luke 17. 26, 27}.
3. The murder of Abel {Luke 11. 51}.
4. The destruction of Sodom {Luke 17. 28}.
5. The Brazen Serpent {John 3. 14, 15}.
6. The cleansing of Naaman of leprosy {Luke 4. 27}.
We must not allow man to take from us a single word of the Holy Scriptures. For ever, O Lord Thy
Word is settled in Heaven {Psalm 119. 89}. Inspiration is claimed only for the original manuscripts in
which the Scriptures were given. Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets said
Christ; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one title, shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled {Mathew 5. 17, 18}.
We heartily endorse the words of Dr. Bishop-Verbal and direst inspiration is therefore the
Thermopylae of Biblical and Scriptural truth. No breath, no syllable; no syllable; no word; no word,
no book; no book, no religion. There is no half-way house said Sir Leslie Stephen, once a
clergyman, but afterwards an unbeliever, between the doctrine of verbal inspiration and a total
abandonment of the Christian Faith.
SEPERATION FROM THE WORLD.
A Christian, though in the world, is not of it {John 17. 16}. He is one with Christ in His
rejection {Matthew 10. 24}, and may expect similar treatment to that which his Master received. He
may count on persecution, if faithful to God and the Word of His Grace. As then, he that was born
after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now {Gal. 4. 29}. He knows
that the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world
is the enemy of God {James 4. 4}. He is promised tribulation while in it {John 16. 33}, and is told
that because he has been chosen out of it, the world will hate him {John 15. 19}. He is exhorted by the
mercies of God, not to be conformed to the world {Romans 12. 2}, but to be separated from it {1 John
2. 15}. The Church and the world are contrasted in Scripture, though we often hear professing
Christians speaking of the Christian world and the Religious world. All who have not been
regenerated by the Holy Spirit compose the world, whether religious or irreligious, moral or
immoral. Some of the unsaved are traveling on the clean side of the broad road, and others on the
dirty side; but both classes are hastening to everlasting perdition. Though there are multitudes of
religious professors in these last days of this dispensation, Gods people are but a little flock
{Luke 12. 32}. Innumerable passages might be quoted which show that the Christian is to be separated
from the world. We would, however, specially refer to one. Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers;
for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness;
and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever?
Wherefore come ye out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord {2 Cor. 6. 14-18, R. V.}
Innumerable attempts have been made to break the force and blunt the edge of this plain and
pointed precept. Some have had the hardihood to assert that the injunction does not apply to
Christians at the present time; that it was a special command given to the believers at Corinth, and is
not binding on us. Are we then at liberty to reject those portions of Scripture which do not suit us?
Were the epistles to the Corinthians not written for our instruction and guidance?

The first epistle is {ch. 1. 2} addressed not only to the saints in Corinth, but to All that in every place
call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, and in view of those who would
detract from the Word. Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, added, If any man think himself to be a
prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord {1 Cor. 14. 37}. The command is from the Lord, and is addressed to, and is therefore
binding on all Christians. Believers are persons who have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and
unbelievers are those who have never experienced the great change.
It is maintained by some that the injunction is to be limited to marriage. Doubtless the
marriage of a believer with an unbeliever would be an unequal yoke. But there are many other
yokes in addition to the matrimonial one. The Lord does not specify the character or object of the
yoke but the command is explicit and comprehensive, and applies to anything in which we
voluntarily unite with others to attain a common object. A Christian should not marry an unbeliever,
nor enter into business partnership with an unbeliever, nor join societies or clubs with
unbelievers, nor enter or continue in church fellowship where known unbelievers are admitted. The
child of God should persistently refuse to be yoked with the unconverted, whether for matrimonial,
commercial, religious, or benevolent purposes. What communion hath light with darkness? {Verse
14}. Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord {Eph. 5. 8}. What communion can a
child of light have with a child of darkness? At creation God divided the light from the darkness {Gen.
1. 4}. What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? {2 Cor. 6. 15}. The word translated infidel
is the same Greek word that is rendered unbeliever in verse 14. The Revised Version has
unbeliever in both cases. What fellowship, then, can there be between a believer and an unbeliever?
The one is a child of wrath, and the other an heir of Heaven; the one is a friend, the other is an enemy
of God {Romans 5. 10}. Of Israel it was said, The People shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned
among the nations {Numbers 23. 9}. Children of God are a redeemed people, and it is the divine
purpose that they should be consecrated and separated to Himself.
But with what subtlety and effrontery Satan opposes, says one, or seeks to neutralize every
precept of the Lord. When pressing this command upon the consciences of Gods children, how
constantly is it cast aside with the remark, It is impossible to tell who are believers and who are not,
the tares and the wheat are to grow together, you are commanded not to judge, etc., etc., as if the
apostle would exhort the saints to a separation that is impossible; As if the tares and the wheat being
allowed till the end of the age to grow together in the world {the field is the world, not the Church,
see Matt. 13. 38}, implies their being yoked together in the Church; as if the command not to judge,
implied that the believer was to close his divinely enlightened eyes to the difference between light and
darkness, between life and death, between Christ and Belial.
Again and again we have been grieved and shocked as we have listened to persons telling how
they were invited, urged, and pressed to join the Church while unsaved on pleading personal
unfitness, and suggesting delay, they were assured that it was their duty to observe the
ordinances, that it was time for them to make a profession of religion, and they were of age,
and So and So was joining. Some have said that they attended the ministers class and on
answering certain questions satisfactorily as to the facts and doctrines of Scripture, they were
admitted into communion. Others have spoken of being confirmed by the Bishop, and led to
imagine, whilst unconverted, that they were in a fit condition to observe the Lords Supper. No
inquiries were made as to when, where, or how the great change had taken place, or for that part of it,
if it had taken place at all. They were received, to use a popular expression, on their own
responsibility.

Large numbers of members of the various denominations make no profession of being regenerated.
If this is doubted, ask the average religious professor how long it is since he was born again, or
saved and you will discover the truth of the statement. In our experience we have found that the
most bitter and determined opposition to plain, searching, and awakening preaching comes from
unconverted professors, who, while having a name to live, are spiritually dead.
A CLERGYMANS TESTIMONY.
Dr. Robert Knox, a devoted and gifted Presbyterian minister, at a Christian Convention
{attended by believers of the various denominations} in Belfast, in May, 1881, in the course of a soulstirring address asked, Why are so many of our Church members so slow to speak? In nine cases out
of ten they know they have no right to do so. They have not yet settled the question of their souls
salvation, and hence there is no freedom {see the Christian, of London, England, June 16th, 1881}
Nine cases out of ten Church members unconverted! What a terrible admission! What a sad
confession! Think then, of Christians sitting side by side at the communion table with those who make
no profession of being born again, passing the bread and wine to them and helping them to perdition.
And this is done under the plea that we have no right to judge! Are we not at liberty to judge! Are
we not at liberty to judge those to be unsaved who themselves confess that they have not been
regenerated? We cannot help sitting at the table with the unconverted, one may reply. But you can
stay away, and Scripture commands that you should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
There are unsaved people in all communions, it is affirmed. Supposing this to be true, is there not a
vast difference between persons creeping in unawares {Jude 4}, professing to be converted, and
persons received without being asked if they have experienced the great change? We are told that we
should not judge. But the injunction {Matt. 7. 1} surely does not mean that we are not to discern,
and discriminate between light and darkness, between the saved and the unsaved, for Scripture
plainly declares, By their fruits ye shall know them {Matt. 7. 20},? And Do not ye judge them that
are within {1 Cor. 5. 12}.? The Word of God distinctly commands believers not to be yoked with
unbelievers, and it is, therefore their duty to discern or judge in the matter.
Christians are permitted to marry only in the Lord {1 Cor. 7. 39}. If one entered the
matrimonial yoke with an unbeliever, would the popular plea that he had no right to judge, be
acceptable to God? Assuredly not. The excuse bears the stamp of Satan, and shows how successfully
the arch-enemy of souls has broken down the wall of separation between the Church and the world.
The supposition that the Lord Jesus allowed Judas to partake of the Supper is the excuse given by
many for continuance in fellowship with known unbelievers. But a careful study of the Gospels will
lead to the conclusion that Judas was not at the Supper, though present at the Passover. The Paschal
feast preceded the Supper. Judas ate bread with Christ, and dipped his hand with Him in the dish {see
John 13. 18; Matt. 26. 23}. This was at the Passover, at which Judas, as a descendant of Abraham was
entitled to be present. The words, He then, having received the sop, went immediately out {John 13.
30; Matt. 26. 25; Mark 14. 21}, shows that this took place before the Supper was partaken of. After
this the Supper was instituted and celebrated. Judas, therefore, could not have been present. Lukes
narrative {which has perplexed some} speaks of Judas hand on the table after Supper was observed.
But this was manifestly not the order of events. Bible students are aware of the face, and
commentators have again and again remarked, that the order of Lukes Gospel is moral rather than
chronological.

WHAT CHURCH SHOULD I JOIN?

This is a question that is often asked by young Christians. Some are advised to stay where they
are; others are exhorted to go where they will be best fed or be able to do most good. Such
directions are unscriptural and misleading, and proceed on the assumption that God has not given
instructions in His Word on the subject. Which of the sects does Scripture counsel believers to join?
All of them certainly cannot be right. They should join the good old Church of England, say many.
What portion of Gods Word speaks of the Church of England or of any other national Church?
Are not all kinds of heresies upheld within its pale? Is not the dreadful, soul-destroying doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration taught in its standards? In the service of Infant Baptism we read, Seeing
now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is by baptism regenerated and grafted into the body of
Christ. It is distinctly asserted in the Catechism that in baptism an infant is made a member of
Christ, a chills of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven. Multitudes are deceived by this
satanic lie, and believe that they were regenerated when babies at their baptism, and do not require to
be born again. Should Christians, whose desire is to please the Lord, support a system in which
fundamental error is upheld?
If a Church of England clergyman is charged with heresy, the Bible is not brought into court.
It is the Prayer-Book which has to decide; and, however serious the error, if not condemned by the
Prayer-Book, he is at liberty to hold it! The consciences of numbers of Christians seem to be little
exercised about their association with evil.
From the way they speak and act, one might conclude that they did not think that such Scriptures as
the following were binding: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: {Eph. 5. 11};
Come out from among them and be ye separate {2 Coe. 6. 17}. Many wink at evil, and excuse
themselves for membership in unscriptural associations, by such pleas as, It is only a matter of
opinion; I would not dare to differ from such able men as So and So; It matters little where we
go, etc., etc.
What scripture is there for joining the Methodist Society? It is not required of applicants
for fellowship in that denomination that they profess conversion to God. One of the Rules declares
that There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission come, and be
saved from their sins. Should any but those who gave already fled from wrath to come be encouraged
to partake of the Lords Supper? Multitudes who once had a desire to flee from wrath to come, and
be saved from their sins, are now beyond the reach of hope. What passage of Scripture exhorts
believers to join the Presbyterian, Baptist, or Congregational communions? None! If, then
the Word of God {the believers such churches; if in their constitution they are opposed to that
Word, and if the Church of God is one Body {Eph. 4. 4; 1 Cor. 12. 13}, why should Christians join
any other body?
Two Christians met in a railway train, and in the course of conversation one inquired of the
other what denomination he belonged to. That is a common enough question was the reply, but will
you say first what is to guide me in my path as a Christian? Gods word. If you will allow me I
will answer your question by proposing another: -What denomination does the Word of God put me
in? On thinking for a little he replied None at all. Then I cannot belong to any, for according to
your own shewing, I should be in a position where the Word of God had not placed me. Are we not
exhorted together? {Heb. 10. 25}. Yes it does, but a Christian does not need to belong to a
denomination to obey that word, for the Lord Jesus says, Where two or three are gathered together
in My Name, there am I in the midst of them {Matt. 18. 20}

IS DENOMINATIONALISM SCRIPTURAL?
When told that we ought to connect ourselves with some sect, we ask, With which? All cannot
be right. Which is the scriptural one? What sect did Paul, Peter, or John belong to? Were they
Methodists, {Presbyterians, or Baptists? There were no sects in those days: believers were all
together. But should they not be together still? Why should there be sects now? If by one Spirit all
believers are baptized into one body {1 Cor. 12. 13}; if the Scripture be a revelation from God, then
of necessity {as has been well remarked by another}, the formation of various bodies, the union of
Christians by what distinguishes them from one another, the adoption of human creeds {as if the
Word of God were not full enough or plain enough for the guidance of His people} must be sin. Paul
beseeches his beloved Corinthians that they all speak the same thing, and that there be no
divisions among them {1 Cor. 1. 10}. For ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envying,
and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal> {1 Cor. 3. 3}. Though outwardly one, they were divided in
heart, and were ranging themselves under different leaders. This was sectarianism in the bud.
Denominationalism scatters the children of God instead of bringing them together.
It invites all who are like-minded on certain truths to form themselves into a distinct body, sect,
or society, instead of gathering simply to the Name of the Lord. It may be replied that We shall
never all see alike on earth. Is that any reason why we should not seek to please the Lord, and
endeavor to be of the same mind and judgment? We should not agree to differ, but we ought to ask
our God and Father to make us of one mind, The Lord prayed that His disciples might be one; that
the world may believe that Thou has sent Me {John 17. 21}. The spectacle of several scores of parties
separated from each other because they cannot agree is not calculated to accomplish this object!
It is amazing what excuses are given for the perpetuation of sectarianism. We are pointed to the
learning and ability of some in the sects; to the earnestness and devotedness of others. Honoured
names of great and good men who have done much for the spread of the Gospel and the defence of the
truth are brought forward to justify continuance in unscriptural positions. If Martin Luther had
remained in the Roman Catholic communion would that have justified Protestants in being
Romanists? The various sects have been compared to regiments of an army all under the same
commander, and guided by his instructions. The comparison is most misleading. Let us suppose that
the Emperor of Germany appoints a general to be his commander-in-chief. For a length of time his
orders are strictly and faithfully obeyed. But by-and by the soldiers form themselves into companies,
each company appointing its own officers. Whilst still professing to maintain their allegiance to the
Imperial Crow, could they be properly called the Army of the German Emperor? When they set aside
the authority of their commander, would not each regiment be in a state of mutiny? And would it be
right for loyal German soldiers to uphold such divisions? This aptly illustrates the condition of
Christendom. Instead of a united army of Christian soldiers, subject in all things to the will of their
Commander-in-Chief, the Lord Jesus, we have an innumerable host of divisions, with selfappointed, or division-appointed, officers, who have formed their own rules and regulations, each
differing from the other.
We are thankful to see of late years among Christians in the denominations a greater desire for
fellowship. Conventions and united prayer meetings are increasing, and believers, for the time being,
forget that they are sectarians, and, as it is called, shake hands over the wall. What a pity it is that
there are any sectarian walls! Who built them? Who props them up? God or Satan? May it be our
firm determination not to allow ourselves to be enclosed in any such walls. The attempts at unity
made from time to time by the denominations {says one} only manifest the utter hollowness of the
basis, as long as the cause of the difference remains untouched.

Such unions are invariably founded on the understanding, expressed or understood, that what are
called controverted doctrines that is such as are held by some and not by others, are to remain in
abeyance. Now, if these are considered of sufficient importance to ordinarily bring about separation in
that which God designed should be one, on what authority are they sunk, whatever the motive may
be? Again, if they are so trivial that they can be shelved at pleasure, how can those so acting clear
themselves of the charge of schism? I beseech you, brethen, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms {Greek} among you {1 Cor. 1. 10}.
When George Whitfield separated from Charles and John Wesley, some of his friends advised
him to start a new sect. To this suggestion the great field-preacher replied Let names and sects and
parties fall. And Jesus Christ be all, in all.
GROUND OF GATHERING
Where two or three are gathered together in My Name there am I in the midst of them
{Matt. 18. 19, 20}. Not merely gathered in {en} His name, as that would not necessarily mean
more than gathered by His authority, but gathered unto {eis} His name, implying that Christs
Name is the center of gathering. Christs Name is the expression of what He Himself is. It has been
often alleged that the promise refers to a few gathered together for prayer. His promised special
presence to the twos and threes gathered to His Name is connected not only with meetings for
prayer but with Church gathering, worship, and discipline {see Matt. 18. 15-18; 1 Cor 5. 4}. To gather
Christians around any other center than Christ is to divide them. Sects are gathered on the ground of
acceptance of certain doctrines on which they are agreed, and reception of these doctrines is expected
from those who join the party. Christians may not yet have learned them if they are to be found in the
Word, or they may reject them, because they are not in the Word, but in either case unless they do
violence to their consciences they cannot become members of the particular sect, for there is no
Scripture for gathering on the ground of any doctrine or truth however precious. Christians are not
enjoined to gather on the ground of the one baptism or the one body. When this is done a truth or
doctrine is elevated into a ground of gathering instead of Christ Himself. Of late years most of the
sects have become exceedingly liberal and accommodating. If a Christian thinks of becoming a
member of a particular denomination, but cannot conscientiously accept its doctrinal declaration, he is
assured that it is unnecessary for him to believe it!
A DISTINGUISHING NAME.
There are those who say, You must have some name to distinguish you from other
Christians. To this we would reply, What distinguishing name had John, Peter, or Paul? The
names which God applies to His people include the whole body of Christ: Believers {Acts 5. 14},
Saints {Phil. 1. 1}, Brethren {2 Thess. 1. 3}, Disciples { Acts 20. 7}, Children of God {John 11.
52}, Christians {Acts 11.26}. The Holy Ghost through the Apostle {Paul rebuked the Corinthians for
ranging themselves under the names of different leaders, and saying, I of Paul, I of Appolos, while
some even went the length of saying I of Christ, to the exclusion of other believers. If, then, they
were carnal through so acting, are Christians in these days spiritual who commit the same sin?
The divisions now are, I of the Methodist, I of the Baptist, I of the Presbyterian, I of the
Church of England, I of the Salvation Army, etc., etc. But you are called Plymouth Brethren,
some may say. We reply that the world has called us by various nicknames.

We are, however, neither The Brethren, nor Brethren {Capital B.}, nor Open Brethren, nor
Close Brethren, nor Plymouth Brethren. We are brethren of all believers, but distinctly refuse
to take any sectarian name. If fellow-Christians call themselves by names that do not include the whole
household of faith, such as Baptist, Methodist, etc., etc., and come under the same condemnation
as the Corinthians, we cannot have fellowship with them in such insubject conduct, even though we
should be counted narrow and bigoted.
Some denominationalists in defending sectarian names affirm that it matters little by what
name Christians are called. We may be unable to hinder persons from calling us by sectarian names,
but that is a very different thing from acknowledging and designating ourselves by such appellations.
It is admitted that there will be no sectarian names in Heaven. Why, then, should there be any
on earth? Call not yourselves Lutherans said the great German Reformer; Who is Luther but a
miserable bag of dust and ashes? Call yourselves Christians after Him who died for you! But alas!
This advice was not heeded.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
The Lord Jesus instituted two ordinances for the observance of His people, Baptism and the
Supper. The Lords Supper shows Christs death for us, and Baptism our death with Him. Baptism is
a type of death and resurrection. It is also an act on the part of the Christian by which, having died
and risen with Christ, he acknowledges the claims of Jesus as Lord. We were buried therefore with
Him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father, so we also might walk in newness of life {Romans 6. 3, 4. R.V.; Col. 2, 12}. As the believer
goes under the waters of baptism he declares I am buried with Him by baptism into death; and as
he rises from the typical grave he can add, Like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory
of the Father, even so I ought to walk in newness of life. In baptism the Christian confesses his
identification with the Lord Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism is neither a means of
salvation nor the door of entrance into the Church. It is a profession of faith on the part of the
believer; and in submitting to the ordinance he virtually says, I have died with Christ, I have been
buried with Christ, and I am risen with Christ. Matt. 28. 19, 20 and Mark 16. 16}. In apostolic times
whenever a person believed, he was baptized {see Acts 2. 41; Acts 8. 12; Acts 10. 48; Acts 16. 15-33;
Acts 18, 8; Acts 19. 5}. There is not a single example in Scripture of infant baptism, nor the semblance
of a command to baptize infants.
In a catechism on Protestantism, inspired by Rome, the following directions are given: When a
Protestant offers you a pious book praising the Bible to the skies, and attacking at the same time the
truths of our faith and Christian practice, under the pretext that they do not find them in the Bible,
ask him where he finds in the Bible that it is right to baptize little infants, which they do just the same
as ourselves. The scriptural mode of baptism is by immersion. Baptism {baptismos} is a Greek
word with two letters omitted. Why was the word not translated? Because at the time the translation
was made. Sprinkling had been adopted. The Greek verb Baptizo signifies to immerse,
submerge, sink, dip. {See any Standard Greek Lexicon.} In the Greek Church baptism is
performed by immersion. One would naturally suppose that Greeks should be well acquainted with
their own language.

We give the testimony of some representative men in the various denominations which practice infant
sprinkling, etc. Calvin, the Reformer, says: The word baptise signifies to immerse, and the rite of
immersion was observed by the ancient Church. JOHN WESLEY, in expounding Roman 6. 4
{Buried with Him by baptism}, says: The allusion is to the ancient manner of baptism by
immersion. Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, in his article on Baptism, which appears in the
Nineteenth Century {October, 1879}, declares that for the first thirteen centuries the almost universal
practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of
the word baptise, that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged immersed into the water.
Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient Church {except in the rare exception of
death-beds or extreme necessity} as no baptism at all.
Dr. TULLOCH, Principal of St. Andrews University, in Good Words for February, 1871, says:
Adult baptism and baptism by immersion were the rules in the early Church: every scholar knows
this.
Dr. WHITBY {Church of England} Immersion was religiously observed by all the Christians
for 13 centuries and was approved by the Church of England. Dr. WALL: Immersion is so plain
and clear by an infinite number of passages that one cannot but pity the weak endeavour of such as
would maintain the negative of it.
MARTIN LUTHER: -I could wish that such as are to be baptised, should be completely
immersed in water according to the meaning of the Word and the significance of the ordinance.
BISHOP HANDLEY MOULE: -True, Scripture indicates a usage of immersion in the
apostolic missions, very plainly.
SUBJECT OF BAPTISM
Households were baptised, and there must have been babies in them. Such is one of the props
on which infant sprinkling rests! Three households are mentioned as having been baptised, viz., the
household of Lydia {Acts 16}, the Philippian jailor {Acts 16}, and Stephens {1 Cor. 1. 16}. To establish
infant baptism it is necessary to prove that there were infants in the households, and that such were
baptised. Of Stephanes household it is said they were the first fruits of the preaching in Achaia, and
that they addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints {Cor. 16. 15}. Could infants addict
themselves to the ministry of the saints? Does the Word not inform us that the jailor rejoiced greatly
with all his house? {Acts16. 34. R. V.} Lydias household is frequently adduced to support infant
baptism. But before this can be established, it is necessary to show {1} that Lydia was, or had been,
married. {2} That she had children, and that some of them were infants {3} That she had brought
them to Philippi. {4} That such infants were actually baptised. There might have been babies in the
household, it is said. In order to prove infant baptism to be a scriptural doctrine, there must be
stronger evidence than that derived from mere supposition. There couldnt have been infants in the
jailors household, said one, for wasnt the youngest eighteen years of age? Where do you find
that? said another, sharply. Where you find there were infants: I guessed it. The Word of God
gives no room for such guessing. Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised
{Acts 18. 8}. This is Gods order still-hearing, believing, and then baptism.
Baptism has taken the place of circumcision, it is affirmed. No passage of Scripture says so.
On the contrary we find that numbers were baptised in addition to being circumcised {Acts 15. 1, 2}.

If baptism takes the place of circumcision, only male infants should be baptised {Gen. 17. 12}. If
baptism is substituted for circumcision, domestic servants of Christians should be baptised, whether
believers or not {Exod. 12. 44}. But if baptism has really taken the place of circumcision, the analogy is
in favour of believers baptism. If a literal infant under the law corresponds to a literal infant under
grace, then only babes in Christ should be baptised. As natural life and birth were pre-requisites for
circumcision, so spiritual life and birth are pre-requisites for baptism. Often the question is asked,
Does the Word of God forbid infant baptism? To this we might reply, Does Gods Word forbid the
baptism of bells? {practiced by Romanists}. There is as much Scripture for the baptism of bells as
there is for the baptism of babies.
Many of the ablest teachers in the various denominations which practice infant baptism, admit
that there is no Scripture for the sprinkling of infants. We select a few testimonies of such. BISHOP
HANDLEY MOULE: -In the New Testament we have not indeed any mention of infant baptism.
DR. PLUMMER, Master of University College, Durham: -The recipients of Christian baptism were
required to repent and believe. Not only is there no mention of the baptizing of infants but there is no
text from which such baptism can be securely inferred. PROFESSOR L. LANGE of JENA All
attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of
the apostolic age and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament. PROFFESOR
SCHLEIRMACHER: -All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the New Testament must
first be put into it. PROFESSOR MEYER: -The baptism of children is not to be considered as an
apostolic institution. DR. AGARBEET {Methodist}-It must be admitted that the New Testament
contains no clear proof that infants were baptised in the days of the apostles.
C. H. M. author of the valuable Notes on the Pentateuch writes: -For my own part seeing
the question has been forced upon me-I can only say that I have for 32 years been asking in vain for a
single line of Scripture for baptizing any save believers. Reasonings I have had, inferences, conclusions
and deductions, but of direct Scripture authority, not one title.
The question to be considered by those desirous of pleasing the Lord should be, Does
Scripture inform us that infants were, or should be baptised, and if so, in what passages can it be
found? I thank God that I baptised none of you {1 Cor. 1. 14} is often quoted. But the Apostle does
not thank God that the Corinthian saints were not baptised, and thus make light of the Lords
command. He gives his reason: Lest any should say I have baptised in mine own name {v. 15}. Again
and again we hear professing Christians saying that baptism is not essential to salvation. Quite true,
but it is essential to obedience on the part of those who are disciples of Christ. When Abraham was
commanded by God to offer up Isaac, he did not say that the offering up of Isaac was not essential to
salvation, and that he could get to Heaven without it. All who really believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ are saved, whether baptised or not. Obedience is the fruit and proof of love; and the words of
the Master are suggestive, If a man love Me he will keep My words {John 14. 23}. One has forcibly
remarked, When people speak of essentials and nonessentials they generally mean by the former
what concerns their own salvation, and by the latter those things which only concern the glory of
God! If then baptism was instituted for believers and you are one and have not been baptised why
tarriest thou? Arise and be baptised.

THE LORDS SUPPER

The Lords Supper is designed for believers and believers only. Only those who know the Lord
Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour can remember Him. It was disciples that came together to
break bread {Acts 20. 7}. The Lords Table is for the Lords people. The basis of Christian
fellowship should be broad enough to embrace all whom God has received {subject to such limitations
as are specified in the Word}.
Once an assembly is satisfied that the person is a believer, he cannot be either expelled or
rejected, excepting there is plain Scripture warranting such a course {The Basis of Fellowship, by
J. R. Caldwell}.
We should receive believers not because of whence they come, but because of what they are. It
was the Apostolic custom for Christians to assemble themselves on the first day of the week to
break bread. Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread
{Acts 20. 7}. Not the first Sunday of the month nor the first Sunday of the quarter. Through the
traditions and commandments of men the Lords Supper is only observed occasionally by the majority
of professing Christians. On the plea of making it too common or inconvenient, once a month or
once a quarter suffices. To break bread was the object for which the early Christians assembled
themselves on the first day of the week. They did not come together to hear Paul discourse with
them {Acts 20. 7, R. V.}, though the Apostle availed himself of the opportunity of doing so. Doubtless
there would be special occasions for teaching and exhortation in addition to the meeting for breaking
bread.
In the early days of the Church there was nothing known of officials presiding at the feast of
remembrance. At the institution of the Supper it was the Lord who gave thanks, broke the bread, and
handed it to the disciples {1 Cor. 11. 23-25}. All they did in the matter was to receive from His hand
the symbols of His body and blood. From this Scripture, it is supposed that the minister, for the time
being, is in the place of the Lord Jesus, presiding at His table, and dispensing the sacrament. When
Christ instituted the ordinance He did not say to John, When I am away you will preside at the
Supper. While on earth, He was in the midst of His gathered ones, and has He not promised that
where two or three are gathered together in My Name. There am I in the midst of them? {Matt. 18.
19, 20}. If then, the Lord is in the midst of the twos and threes gathered unto His Name, why should
any of their number assume to take His place? Though unperceived by the bodily eye, He is visible to
the believer by the eye of faith. You might join our church, said a Baptist Christian to a friend.
Who presides at the Lords table? Mr. P. {the minister} does. If the Lord were to enter the
meeting-house what would Mr. P. do? He would rise and allow Christ His place at the head of His
table. Has Christ not promised that where two or three are gathered together in His Name He is
there in their midst? And if He is in the midst, why should Mr. P. usurp the Lords place at the head
of His table? The question it is needless to say remained unanswered.
The Word of God is silent about ministers administering the sacraments. There are no
sacraments in the New Testament. The word sacrament is derived from sacramentum, an oath.
Roman citizens, on enlistment as soldiers, took the sacramentum or military oath of allegiance to
their country.

Whilst remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread the believer takes no oath or vows upon
him: he keeps a feast. There is no proof whatever that it was considered necessary to have the presence
of elders, bishops, or ministers when believers were assembled to break bread. We do not read that
the Reverend So-and-so administered the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Such ecclesiastical
phraseology was then utterly unknown. On the first day of the week, when the disciples were
gathered together to break bread, elders or bishops, if present, would take the bread and wine
among the rest; but the sacrament and the clergyman had not then been invented.
A suggestive correspondence appeared in the pages of the Canadian Baptist denominational
organ. It seems that a small Baptist congregation in a thinly settled district of Ontario, had been for
several years without the services of a duly qualified and regularly ordained minister. During that
period they had been disobedient to the Lord {if non-observance of the other} in not coming together
to break bread. One of the correspondents took New Testament ground maintaining that the little
company was entitled to observe the sacrament even though no ordained minister was present.
Another correspondent disagreed contending that if such unseemly and unauthorized conduct were
tolerated by the Baptist denomination it would inevitably lead to Plymouthism. Whether or not
ecclesiastical permission was given to the Church to obey the Lord, we can not say.
THE PRINCIPLES WONT WORK
It is often said that the principles advocated in these pages wont work. If they are divine
principles it is our responsibility to carry them out, in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Failure in
carrying out Gods principles cannot alter or effect them, and surely responsibility does not exceed
ability. It is well, however, to remember that New Testament principles require New Testament power
in order to their successful operation.
An old, and esteemed friend of ours used to tell a story of a conversation that he had with a
Church of England clergyman whom he met in a railway carriage. In the course of conversation the
clergyman remarked I never try to drive the people to Church. I often say to my parishioners that
they should do about spiritual things as they do about their groceries, go where they get best served. If
the Methodist parson does more good than I do, let them go to him by all means. Mr. H. replied that
while that was very liberal from his point of view, it appeared to him to be very wrong. If what you
are doing at Church said he is what the Lord has commanded, then they ought to be all there, if they
are Gods children. But if it is contrary to Scripture, however much they might like it, neither you nor
they have any business there. Oh said the Clergyman, I dont think God has given us any direct
instructions as to such things. I believe He gives us considerable liberty to follow what we find most
suitable to our own particular case, and that we are quite justified in choosing accordingly. Mr. Hs
reply was as follows: -On the contrary, I find the Word of God just as explicit about these things as it
is with regard to the way a sinner must be saved. I should like you very much to show me where
was the clergymans response, and most willingly we took out our Bibles and turned from passage to
passage.

We saw how those who gladly received the Gospel were baptized, and how they continued steadfastly
in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the fellowship and in the breaking of bread and in the prayers
{Acts 2. 41, 42}; how the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread {Acts 20.
7}; how that when the saints were gathered together all might prophecy one by one, that all might
learn and all might be comforted, and yet that all must be subject one to another {1 Cor. 14. 31, 32};
how older ones in each assembly were to feed the flock, and take the oversight thereof, looking for
their reward when the Chief Shepherd shall appear {1 Peter 5. 1-4} and much more. I have been
deeply interested in all you have been saying. It is very beautiful; indeed as a theory it holds perfect,
but it seems to me that in practice it would need some supernatural power to make it work.
Undoubtedly, we replied, that is just what it does want; and what do you suppose the Holy Ghost
was given for? Oh he replied in astonishment. I never thought of that. Many, like the clergyman,
never think of the ministration of the Holy Spirit in guiding believers when they meet to carry out
Gods Word. In Pauls 1st Epistle to the Corinthians we see the gifts mentioned which the risen Head
of the Church has given, and it is said All these worketh that one, and the selfsame Spirit dividing to
every man {R. V. each one} severally as He will {V. 11}. If the various gifts are used under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, Gods people will be established, strengthened and settled in the faith.
CLERGY. AND LAITY.
Before the world took the professing Church under its patronage, no such caste
distinctions as clergy and laity were known. The word clergy cones from kleeros, signifying
heritage {1 Peter 5. 3}, and is applicable to all believers. Those not of this assumed priestly caste are
called laity, from laios, the common people, the rabble. The thought of a clergy is a class of
persons having officially a right to leadership in spiritual things, a nearness to God derived from
official place, not spiritual power. On account of this official place accorded to the clergyman, he is
the only one in the congregation who is supposed to have authority to administer the sacraments the
others are mere laymen, and dare not undertake such priestly duties. What portion of Scripture
speaks of two classes in the Church of God, called clergy and laity? Where do we find mention of
a class of men called clergy {distinguished by a special title} appointed to conduct the service and
worship of God? Are not all Gods children priests {1 Peter 2. 5-9}? Have all believers not a title to
draw near to God and offer up spiritual sacrifices {Heb. 10. 22; Heb. 13. 15}? Dr. Stanley, Dean of
Westminster, speaks thus in his Christian Institutes of the order of the clergy-In the first
beginning of Christianity there was no such institution as the clergy {page 19-New Edition}. Dr. A.
T. Pierson says-These terms clergy and laity were the invention of the devil in the Dark Ages.
The introduction of this distinction into the Church of Christ was not only an invention of the devil but
a master stroke of Satan Craft. {Pages 31 and 32 of Divine Enterprise of Missions}.
Is it not unscriptural to give flattering titles unto men {Job 32. 21}, and especially a title that
belongs to God alone? Holy and Reverend is His Name {wee Psalm 111. 9}. Any one taking the title
of reverend acts contrary to the principle enunciated in Matt. 23. 8-12.
When the Church married the world priestly orders, robes, and vestments were established, and
professed ministers of Christ so far forgot the spirit of this present dispensation as to set up an order
of ecclesiastical nobility to have spiritual dominion over Christendom.

Hence they have as the counterpart of His Majesty the King, His Holiness the Most Holy Father, His
Grace the Duke, His Eminence the Cardinal, The Most Noble the Marquis, His Grace the Archbishop,
The Right Honourable the Earl, The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop, The Right Honourable
Viscount, The Very Reverend the Archdeacon, Barons a Baronets, Reverend Doctors and Reverends.
C. H. SPURGEON in speaking of preachers taking the title of reverend remarks: It is at
any rate a suspicious circumstance, that among mankind no class of pretentious title as the professed
ministers of the lowly Jesus: Peter and Paul were right reverend men, but they would have been the
last to have called themselves so. A lad fresh from college who has just been placed in the pulpit is
called the Reverend Smith, whilst his eminently godly father who has for fifty years walked with God
has no claim for such reverence. We wonder where men first sought out this invention, and from
whose original mind did the original sin emanate. We suspect he lived in the Roman Row in Vanity
Fair, though the Rev. John Bunyan does not mention him. One thing is pretty certain, he did not
flourish in the days of the Reverend Paul, or Reverend Peter or Reverend Apollos.
DONT YOU BELIEVE IN MINISTERS?
We certainly believe in the Divine institution of the Christian ministry. Special gifts have
been bestowed by the Lord Jesus Christ, the risen Head of the Church. Unto some He gave apostles,
prophets, pastors and teachers till we all come in the unity of the faith {Eph. 4. 11-13}. We have not,
however, been able to find in Scripture any traces of such a person as the modern minister of a church
or congregation. On the contrary, we find a plurality of elders, bishops, or overseers {see Acts
20. 17; Acts 14. 23; 1 Peter 5. 1}. While contending for a special and distinctive ministry on the part of
those who are gifted, we also believe in a general ministry in which all Christians gave a place. The
Church of God is compared to a human body, each member having its own functions to perform. The
eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee {1 Cor. 12. 21}. Now hath God set the members
every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him {verse 18}. Having then gifts differing
{Romans 12. 6}. While there are different gifts, one is not to be magnified above another. If, however,
one member of the body absorbs the functions of other members: if one member be appointed by
man to supply that which God has supplied through every joint, and can only be conveyed to the
edifying of the whole according to the effectual working in the measure of every part {Eph. 4. 16}, is
it any wonder that Christians should be starved, in bondage, in darkness, in division? In Christian
assemblies there ought to be liberty and scope afforded for the exercise of the gifts that Christ has
bestowed. That such liberty has been given by the Holy Spirit is clearly evident from 1 Cor. 14. 23-40.
At the present day one persons to be found called the minister, claiming to have exclusive right to
instruct and exhort companies of professing Christians. This authority is obtained by virtue of his
official position towards them.
The minister is expected to have at least three distinct gifts, viz., those of the evangelist, pastor,
and teacher. Seldom, however, do we find all these possessed by any single person. A minister
may be an evangelist and no teacher, and is therefore, unable to build up; or he may be a
teacher and not an evangelist, and the bulk of his hearers be unconverted. If any human barrier
be raised to prevent the exercise of any gift that God may have committed to any believer, the Spirit is
in such measure quenched, the nourishment that would minister to the body from the Head is
intercepted; leanness, division and error must soon follow. A Presbyterian paper says-It takes 10
years to make a good minister. Man-made ministers are not satisfactory.

Every believer is responsible to the Lord for the exercise of whatever gift he may have received. He
does not require to wait for human authority of license to teach, preach, or exhort. As every man
hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold
grace of God {1 Peter 4. 10, 11}.
It may be objected that where there is liberty of ministry, incapable men will attempt to
minister whom God has not qualified. But failure on the part of those who seek to carry out Gods
principles can never alter or affect the principles; and surely Scripture provides for all contingencies!
CHOOSING AND HIRING MINISTERS.
There is no Scripture for a church choosing its minister, or clergyman, or, in other words,
the sheep choosing their shepherd. The Lord gave, and the Church received. A church {or assembly}
has no right to choose which of Gods gifts it will accept. This was how sectarianism began at
Corinth. Some preferred Paul, some Apollos, and others Peter. Not contented to receive all the gifts,
they selected those whom they esteemed best; and, while outwardly one, they were divided in heart.
Some have, with singular boldness, contended that Christians have as much right to choose their
ministers as they have to select their physicians or lawyers. Scripture gives no countenance to such a
thought. Acts 6. is often quoted in support of the theory, but it is to be observed that the seven
selected were not chosen to teach or preach, but to serve tables. Their functions were temporal, not
spiritual. Surely there is a vast difference between taking charge of money and taking oversight of
souls! It is not the case of one elected to minister the Word {the ministry of the Word and the
serving of tables being contrasted, verse 2}. Though the Church chose them at the command of the
apostles, they were set apart for their special service by the twelve. Believers are exhorted to know
them that labour among them {1 Thess. 5:12,13}. To salute, remember and obey them {He
brews 13. 7, 17, 24}, but never to elect, choose, or appoint them. Servants of Christ should be
known, not by official badges, titles, or clerical costumes, but by their work. That there are God-gifted
teachers, evangelists, and pastors, in the various sects we freely and frankly admit. They are so,
however, not by virtue of human ordination or educational acquirements. A good tailor is known by
the quality of the work done by him. In the same way are those known who are divinely called
evangelists, pastors, and teachers. And though colleges, presbyteries, synods, bishops, or
conferences appoint men to offices. Christians are not bound to own such as called of God for the
special service, unless they have the qualifications specified in Scripture {see 1 Thess. 5. 13; Heb. 13.
17}.
The custom of preachers hiring themselves to men for so much a year is most unscriptural and
reprehensive Buying, bargaining, and selling, in relation to ministry in the Church of God, must be
wrong. Think of the Apostle Paul hiring himself to the Corinthians at a fixed salary! The labourer is
worthy of his hire. Hire should be translated reward to be consistent with other passages.
Misthos is the Greek word. Great is your reward {misthos} in Heaven {Matt. 5. 12; Mark 9. 41}. If
his preaching does not please his hearers {most of whom may be unconverted} he will soon find out
that it is advisable for him to obtain a call from some other congregation.

It is blessedly true that God has ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel
{1 Cor. 9. 14}; and those whom the Lord has fitted, called, and sent forth to preach the Gospel will
have their need supplied without recourse being had to unscriptural means. Servants of Christ should
look to the Lord alone to support them. If the hire were stopped, those who are merely hirelings
would soon be weeded out. If, however, servants of Christ cannot trust Him to supply their need, let
them seek some honest occupation by which they can earn their daily bread.
The various sects are largely helped by contributions from the unconverted. Every imaginable
scheme is set a foot to raise funds to support the cause. Church entertainments, socials, fairs,
festivals, scientific lectures, suppers, picnics, moonlight excursions, concerts, raffles, readings, amateur
theatricals, and bazaars, are got up with the object of squeezing money out of the pockets of
unconverted men and women to pay the preachers salary, or remove the debt from the house of
God.
Fair and festival, frolics untold, are held in the house of prayer, And maidens, bewitching as Syrens
of old, with worldly graces rare; invent the very cunningest tricks, untrammeled by Gospel or laws,
To beguile, and amuse, and win from the world, some help for the righteous cause.
No wonder that an infidel remarked to a Presbyterian minister I think your God must be in
great need of money, by the tricks the churches practice to get it for Him. The whole system of
church support by amusements and entertainments is of the world. Satan claims a mortgage on all
institutions which his servants help to support. If Christians go down to Egypt by asking help from
the unsaved to carry on the work of the Lord, they need not be surprised that worldlings will expect to
have some control in the management of their church affairs. The living and eternal God is not
impoverished. He who supported a whole nation for forty years in a barren wilderness can surely
sustain those whom He has called and qualified for His service with out their having recourse to
begging money from the unsaved. His own words are, Taking nothing of the Gentiles {3 John 6-8}.
ORDINATION.
Nowhere do we find in the New Testament that Christians were ordained or set apart by men
to teach or preach excepting the house of Stephanas, who addicted or, as the word is elsewhere
rendered, ordained themselves to the ministry of the saints {1 Cor. 16. 15}. Apostles and their
delegates ordained or set apart elders or bishops, but neither of these classes was ordained to preach
or teach. That those among them who were fitted to teach or preach exercised their gift is granted, but
they were not ordained for such purposes.
A bishop or elder was a ruler or overseer, but not necessarily a preacher or teacher. 1 Timothy 5. 17
clearly proves this: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those
who labour in word and doctrine. This Scripture shows that there were elders who did not labour in
word and doctrine, proving that they were not ordained for preaching or teaching. If they had been
ordained for the purpose of preaching or teaching all of them would have done so. In each assembly
there was a plurality of elders or bishops. Such were not ordained by churches, bishops, or archbishops, but by apostles, or their representatives.

Preachers ordain ministers and elders by putting their hands on their heads in imitation of the
apostles. One of the texts usually quoted on support of the ordination of ministers and elders is 1
Timothy 4. 14:-Neglect not the gift that is in thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery. But 2 Timothy1. 6, Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my
hands shows us that a special gift was granted to Timothy by prophecy by the laying on of the
Apostles hands. The presbytery did not impart the gift; they were simply associated with the
apostle in the act. Is any gift now bestowed on a preacher at his ordination? Ordination grace is
imparted, said a minister to us recently. What sort of grace is that? Acts 13. 3 affords us another
example of laying on of hands, but not of ordaining. It is simply a case of expression of fellowship with
Paul and Barnabas, who were going forth on a special errand. They had been preaching for years
previous to this, and it is not likely that the brethren at Antloch supposed that they were ordaining the
Apostle Paul. We ask those who ordain men to the ministry, Where is your authority? That apostles
ordained, it is evident. Titus ordained elders. True, but he was commissioned by an apostle to do so.
What authority has the Church to ordain? Is there any body of men on earth that has that power
now? IF SO, LET THEM PRODUCE THEIR CREDENTIALS!
If some godly laymen {so called} ordained one of their number to preach the Gospel, the
clergy would not likely recognize such a one. But where did the clergy obtain their authority? Do
they believe in apostolic succession? If not, where did they obtain authority to ordain? The Church of
Scotland, in 1560, renounced ordination by imposition of hands as a superstition, and eighteen years
later they restored it {see Beverley on Ministry, page 4}. Ordaining is always spoken of in
connection with elders. Nowhere in Scripture do we read of pastors being ordained. This was
evidently felt to be a difficulty in the denomination, but it was got over by calling the pastor a
teaching elder. By changing his name they have managed to preserve ordination, which seemingly,
must be preserved at any cost. Apostles and their delegates had authority to ordain, but none others.
YOU ARE ALSO A SECT
It is asserted by some that Christians who seek to carry out the principles we have enunciated,
are as much a sect as any other. If sects are condemned in Scripture, are believers compelled to
disobey the Lord? The Greek word rendered sect in the Authorized Version of the New Testament
is the word hairesis {See Acts 15.5; Acts 24.5 Acts 26.5 Acts 28.22}. Writing to the Corinthians, the
Apostle says, For there must be also heresies amongst you {Hairesis, Cor. 11. 19, sects}.
Among the works of the flesh mentioned in Gal. 5. 20, are adultery, fornications, heresies
or sects {hairesis}.
Denomination, as one has observed, is a specious word invented by shame to conceal the
nakedness of the fall of Christendom. That which erring and bewildered Christians call
denomination is in Scripture called schism {see Greek in 1 Cor. 1. 10-12; 12. 25, schismata}, so
that whatever we may now hear concerning denominations {that is, sects and schisms}, and however
these divisions may now be applauded and admired, and however much it may be a fashionable virtue
to speak well of them all, yet this is certain, if there be any truth in the Word of God, every sect is a
sin and every division is a proof of disobedience. There is one body {Eph. 4.4} is a truth in the Word
of God, to speak of various denominations is but after all saying that there are various schisms, for
Christ and His Church have but one name {1 Cor. 12. 12}, one body {Eph. 5. 29, 30}, and one Spirit
{1 Cor. 6. 17}.

If schism in the body of Christ is sin; if divisions are to be avoided, surely there must be a remedy.
Was the multiplication of churches in apostolic times the multiplication of sects? Assuredly not. If,
then, Christians, however few their number, go back to the rock-fast position in the Scripture,
gathering to the name of the Lord, receiving those whom He has received, owning no sectarian name,
or terms of fellowship, are they thereby constituted a sect?
POSITION AND CONDITION.
It is freely admitted that a right church position does not necessarily secure a right spiritual
condition. It is quite possible for Christians in a scriptural position to become sectarian in heart and
ways. Naturally we are all sectarians and greatly need largeness of heart {1 Kings 4. 29} to walk in
the narrow pathway of obedience. The late Mr. Henry Groves has said that a wrong condition, which
is inward, is even more defiling to the soul and more injurious to spiritual life than a wrong position,
which is outward. We can praise God for the unsectarian condition of soul of so many who are still
held in the bonds of a sectarian position whilst we mourn over the sectarian condition of some who
boast of an unsectarian position. It has been well said that A sect founded on knowledge is the worst
of all sects. Church fellowship ought not to be limited by any measure of attainment in knowledge or
faith. As long as the Church is on earth there will be differences of judgment among Christians. But
differences of judgment on minor points ought to be no barrier to fellowship. It is the determination
not to tolerate such differences that is the source of many schisms. If Christians would remember that
things that are equally true are not equally important, and things that are equally false are not
equally fatal, there would be fewer divisions. Mr. Groves, in an admirable booklet entitled Schism
and its Cure, says some strong things about sectarianism: Whilst sectarianism has various forms it
exhibits two characteristics, he remarks: {1} It demands as a title for fellowship, the recognition of
things not contained in the Word of God; or {2}, While making the Word the basis of fellowship, it
requires an understanding of, and submission to, truths, which God has not made essential to
fellowship. In the former case the Word is virtually set aside as Gods all-sufficient guide, and in the
latter the Word wrongly used is made the occasion of schism The second description of sectarianism
is more seductive.
Accepting the Bible only as the rule of faith, it is not content with these fundamentals of truth which
God has made the basis of fellowship and on which He would have us build one another up, but it
binds the conscience on things in which God would have each one responsible to his own Lord. This
sets aside the ground, common to all saints, on which the father in Christ and the babe in Christ stand
together. The practical, though not the intentional, result is, the spirit which finds expression in the
words, Stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou {Isa. 65.5}. Mr. R. M. Henry
of Belfast an ex-Baptist minister on his deathbed said to an old friend of ours, Good-bye, dear
brother! May God help you in endeavouring to keep the door of the Gospel open to all sinners, and the
door of the church open to all saints. Well would it be for all of us if we remembered the words of a
great and a good man: -I have a whole Christ for my salvation: the whole Bible for my souls
instruction and guidance: the whole Church of God for my fellowship: the whole of the Spirits
ministry in it: the whole world for my parish, that I may be a true catholic and never become
sectarian.

The following words from a beloved brother now with the Lord are worth remembering: While there are many things that call for humiliation among the assemblies of believers scripturally
gathered, we do not hold these things, or teach them to others as part of the mind of God. Do you say
you have found pride, worldliness, self seeking, and a score more of grievous things among such
assemblies? Be it so: I dare not deny it. But are these things declared to be pleasing to God, and made
an essential part of the principle of our coming together? This is what is continually overlooked. The
unscriptural practices in the various sects of Christendom are vital parts of their systems. They are
upheld, and taught, and justified, and those who belong to the sects are therefore upholders of its evils.
Another authority is made to over-ride that of the Word of God, and that Word is made of none effect
through mans traditions. It is not the persons we are separating from, but the false principles and the
denial to the Lord Jesus of His place of absolute authority in His own house. A young man once asked
how things were going on in a certain gathering. I had to tell him of grievous troubles and even
divisions, And do you call that godly order? he asked No I do not was my reply, but neither did
Paul call the condition of things at Corinth godly order. Yet he never suggested that they should leave
off simply gathering around the Lord and adopt some human device instead, to keep up at least the
outward appearance of order {Position and Condition by Alfred J. Holiday, The Witness, 1887].
COMMON OBJECTIONS.
I admit that there are numbers in our church fellowship who make no profession of being
converted: should I not, however, remain in it and try to put things right? Gods Word does not
sanction continuance in unscriptural positions, even though the motive be to do good If sects are
condemned by God, should believers uphold that which is displeasing to Him?
Many Christians are hindered from acting out the truth of God through the subtle, satanic
snare that they can do more good in the circle where they move. They have so many opportunities
of doing good, and if they renounced membership of unscriptural ecclesiastical systems, their
influence would be lessened and their usefulness impaired.
Samuels words to Saul should be prayerfully pondered by such: Hath the Lord as great delight in
burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams {1 Samuel 15. 22}. Believers are not responsible for the
results of their service. The business of the Christian should be to please the Lord in all things, at all
times, under all circumstances, and at all costs. The highest success {as one has well remarked} is
pleasing God: Of the Lord Himself it is written: I have laboured in vain, I have spent My strength for
naught, and in vain, yet surely My judgment is with the Lord, and My work with My God {Isa. 49. 4}.
Much that now passes current among men as successful service will, at the judgment seat of
Christ, be found to be but wood, hay, and stubble {1 Cor. 3. 12}. The commendation bestowed by
the Lord on the servant {Matt. 25. 23} was not, Well done, Popular and successful servant, but
Well done, good and faithful servant.
Go where you can do most good. Stay where you can be of most use. Such are the
exhortations given to young believers. Through such unscriptural teaching, earnest Christian workers
are so thoroughly prejudiced against the truth that they are not prepared to do Gods will.
I would come into fellowship if Mr. So-and So were settled amongst you. If so you would not
come out to the Lord; you would come out to Mr. So-and So. If he went elsewhere on his Masters
errands you would most probably return to the sect you liked best, or go where you would be best
fed.

If all the believers in the village where you reside gathered simply to the name of the Lord, you would
gave the benefit of all the gifts in the gathering; if however, they disobey Christ and continue in
sectarian positions, should their failure cause you to reject Gods principles? Assuredly not. If only
two believers gathered on New Testament principles where we reside, surely our place ought to be
with them. The promise is, Where two or three are gathered together in {unto Greek} My name,
there am I in the midst of them {Matt. 18. 19, 20}. The path of obedience is a narrow one. Obedience
in a past dispensation generally brought temporal blessings, but the obedience of faith in the present
dispensation brings trial and tribulation, more or less. Many who rejoice in the gift of God referred
to in Romans 6. 23 do not so fully appreciate the gift spoken of in Philippians 1. 29, -Unto you it is
given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him but also to suffer for His sake. Those who
make it their business to follow the Lord in the path of separation, may expect persecution.
ACTING OUT THE TRUTH.
In seeking to act out Gods truth you may count on opposition. Every conceivable objection will
be placed in your way by worldly and religious people to keep you from following Christ. The fewness
of numbers of those gathering simply in the Lords name, the feebleness of testimony, the lack of gifted
teachers, the absence of persons of position or culture, will be pressed into service. You will again and
again be informed and reminded that your influence will be injured, and your usefulness hindered.
Your self-conceit and opinionativeness in daring to imagine that you know better than gifted
Divines will be proclaimed. Friends whom you expect to help you in carrying out the truth of God
will oppose.
You will be looked upon with suspicion and distrust, and from pulpit, platform, and press, people will
be put on their guard and advised to shun you. You will be told of trouble caused in households
through the reception of the truth. There is, however, nothing strange in that. The truth of God does
separate. The Lord Jesus said: I am come to set a at variance against his father, and the daughter
against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a mans foes shall be they
of his own household {Matt. 10. 35-37}. Whatsoever the Lord Jesus commands you, do it, irrespective
of consequences. Many who greatly delight to expatiate on the Whosoever of John 3. 16, are not so
much concerned about the Whatsoever of John 2. 5, Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.
If you do not come out to the Lord, and to the Lord alone; if you take the place of separation
for the sake of gifted brethren, or because you were converted through their instrumentality, or on
account of misunderstandings with some in denomination you left, you will soon return. The path of
rejection with Christ is trying to the flesh, and when difficulties present themselves in scriptural
assemblies some who have learned truth merely from mens lives or books have neither the patience
nor the grace to face the difficulties. Christians and companies of Christians may fail in carrying out
Gods principles, but the principles continue unchanged. Dont allow the thought of your usefulness
or influence to stand between you and following the Lord fully. Be faithful, and leave results
with Him.

A dairyman in a town in Scotland was greatly exercised about taking his place with a small company
of believers. Strong pressure was brought to bear upon him to prevent his doing so. The principal
reason assigned was that his customers would cease purchasing his milk. Then by the grace of
God, said he, I will sell my cows. Brave soldier of the Cross! Christians who are prepared to follow
the Lord wholly, and if necessary to suffer all earthly loss, are much required in these time-serving
days. Jelly-fish Christians-men without backbone-never trouble the devil, and are not of much use
in the service of God. Davids men said to him in a time of great perplexity, Behold thy servants are
ready to do whatsoever my Lord the King shall appoint {2 Samuel 15. 15}. Having taken a right
Church position, keep in a right condition of soul, and God will own and bless you. Be it your constant
delight to please Him. Let us go forth unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach {Heb. 13.
13}; let us abide in Him, that when He shall appear we may have confidence, and not be ashamed
before Him at His coming {1 John 2. 28}. Our blessed Lord is coming! His own precious words are,
Behold I come quickly {Rev. 22. 7}. May we occupy till He come! For yet a very little while, He
that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry {Heb. 10. 37, R. V.}
A little while, twill soon be past,
Why should we shun the shame and Cross?
O let us in His footsteps haste,
Counting for him all else but loss:
O how will recompense His smile,
The sufferings of this little while.
A.M.